Well, reformation was needed, but I don't think Protestantism was the answer. I suppose it was good in the sense it resulted in the counter reformation within the Roman Catholic Church, but not much else, IMO.

I agree with Kerdy. A reformation was needed, and still is. The Reformation, however, was more deformation than the required remedy. It certainly wasn't desirable from an Orthodox viewpoint as it resulted in a plethora of heretical sects.

James

Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

The Reformation was not uniform--perhaps ReformationS would be more accurate. The three classical versions are 'Reformed', Lutheran, and Anglican; and then there were various versions of the Radical Reformation. Some forms were more conservative than others; and some threw more baby out with the bath water so to speak. To that extent, certain aspects associated with the Protestant Reformation can be considered 'Deformations' (as another poster called it).

I can't recall who said it, but someone once called the Reformation a "tragic necessity"--Romanists too often don't recognize the necessity, and Protestants too often don't recognize the tragedy.

Well, reformation was needed, but I don't think Protestantism was the answer. I suppose it was good in the sense it resulted in the counter reformation within the Roman Catholic Church, but not much else, IMO.

My opinion is that the counter Reformation did more damage than the Reformation itself. I believe this is where the Roman Catholic Church significantly left the ancient traditions of the Church (which is why I find it funny that RC traditionalists cling to Trent, rather than an older tradition). I feel that Rome starting having "Reformation-phobia" and when presented with a choice of clinging to an older tradition that has either been attacked or embraced by Reformationists, or to do something new, they chose to do something new. So the Church didn't stay true to herself, and instead started redefining ancient Christian belief in a non-Protestant way to separate herself from the Reformationists.

The Reformation was a missed opportunity. What if the Lutherans and Anglicans would have gone Orthodox instead?

I read that they tried. Luther was in contact if I am not mistaken, with the Patriarch of Antioch. Eventually the Patriarch was so frustrated with Luther's insistence on his theology that in his final letter, he asked Luther not to write back to him again.

The Reformation was not uniform--perhaps ReformationS would be more accurate. The three classical versions are 'Reformed', Lutheran, and Anglican; and then there were various versions of the Radical Reformation. Some forms were more conservative than others; and some threw more baby out with the bath water so to speak. To that extent, certain aspects associated with the Protestant Reformation can be considered 'Deformations' (as another poster called it).

I can't recall who said it, but someone once called the Reformation a "tragic necessity"--Romanists too often don't recognize the necessity, and Protestants too often don't recognize the tragedy.

agreed. "The Reformation" is an historical misnomer for an unending happening. All those involved have been reforming ever since.

The Reformation was a missed opportunity. What if the Lutherans and Anglicans would have gone Orthodox instead?

I read that they tried. Luther was in contact if I am not mistaken, with the Patriarch of Antioch. Eventually the Patriarch was so frustrated with Luther's insistence on his theology that in his final letter, he asked Luther not to write back to him again.

The Reformation was a missed opportunity. What if the Lutherans and Anglicans would have gone Orthodox instead?

I read that they tried. Luther was in contact if I am not mistaken, with the Patriarch of Antioch. Eventually the Patriarch was so frustrated with Luther's insistence on his theology that in his final letter, he asked Luther not to write back to him again.

Close but no cigar... According to Fr. Damick The second generation Lutherans approached the EP and wrote over the course of several years before said happened.

The Reformation was a missed opportunity. What if the Lutherans and Anglicans would have gone Orthodox instead?

I read that they tried. Luther was in contact if I am not mistaken, with the Patriarch of Antioch. Eventually the Patriarch was so frustrated with Luther's insistence on his theology that in his final letter, he asked Luther not to write back to him again.

The Reformation was a missed opportunity. What if the Lutherans and Anglicans would have gone Orthodox instead?

I read that they tried. Luther was in contact if I am not mistaken, with the Patriarch of Antioch. Eventually the Patriarch was so frustrated with Luther's insistence on his theology that in his final letter, he asked Luther not to write back to him again.

The Reformation was a missed opportunity. What if the Lutherans and Anglicans would have gone Orthodox instead?

I read that they tried. Luther was in contact if I am not mistaken, with the Patriarch of Antioch. Eventually the Patriarch was so frustrated with Luther's insistence on his theology that in his final letter, he asked Luther not to write back to him again.

it is important to remember that MLs intentions were to REFORM (hence, reformation) the CC. And the origin of "protestant" comes from "protesting-catholic. Unfortunately, MLs followers decided to just pick up a Bible and start their own church because they considered themselves to be infallible. Pope Leo X should not have excommunicated Luther but rather think about it and pray and fast over the 95 thesis, ML made some GREAT points.

in short, he should have kept the rulings of all seven Ecumenical Councils and not just the first four and done more (as well as Anglicans) to re-communicate with Holy Orthodoxy, but I'm glad Jeremiah II didn't get into the pan-heresy/offspring of all heresies

Since many of you feel that the Refomation was necessary, but not done correctly, how would it have been if the EOC had carried out the Reformation against the Roman Catholic Church instead of the Protestants in the 16th Century?

Would the EOC have succeeded? (Resulting in reunification of the two Churches?)

Since many of you feel that the Refomation was necessary, but not done correctly, how would it have been if the EOC had carried out the Reformation against the Roman Catholic Church instead of the Protestants in the 16th Century?

What do you mean by that? How one can reform something from the outside?

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

Since many of you feel that the Refomation was necessary, but not done correctly, how would it have been if the EOC had carried out the Reformation against the Roman Catholic Church instead of the Protestants in the 16th Century?

What do you mean by that? How one can reform something from the outside?

As far as I see, a Reformation can be carried out from inside or outside. It doesn't make a difference.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

It is a lengthy topic. I was expecting a definition there in a couple of sentences.

Anyway it doesn't look relevant to this thread.

It is quite relevant, actually.

At the time of the Reformation, the traditional Orthodox lands were under Ottoman occupation and the Church was dealing with various levels of suppression and persecution. Add to that the bad blood between East and West since the sack of Constantinople (1204 CE), and the chance of overtures towards the West was nil.

There's your two sentences; hope they help.

Logged

'Evil isn't the real threat to the world. Stupid is just as destructive as evil, maybe more so, and it's a hell of a lot more common. What we really need is a crusade against stupid. That might actually make a difference.'~Harry Dresden

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

At the time of the Reformation, the traditional Orthodox lands were under Ottoman occupation

Like Muscovia, GDL...

Too busy fighting Tatars, Lithuanians and other local dukes to expand its borders eastwards.

Logged

'Evil isn't the real threat to the world. Stupid is just as destructive as evil, maybe more so, and it's a hell of a lot more common. What we really need is a crusade against stupid. That might actually make a difference.'~Harry Dresden

It is a lengthy topic. I was expecting a definition there in a couple of sentences.

Anyway it doesn't look relevant to this thread.

It is quite relevant, actually.

At the time of the Reformation, the traditional Orthodox lands were under Ottoman occupation and the Church was dealing with various levels of suppression and persecution. Add to that the bad blood between East and West since the sack of Constantinople (1204 CE), and the chance of overtures towards the West was nil.

From an Eastern Orthodox viewpoint, was the Protestant Reformation of the 16th Century necessary?

Please write yes or no, along with any comments.

I would say no. That is, there were problems, but the route that was taken wasn't a solution, and actually just created more problems. There had already been theological disagreements about things like papal supremacy in the west (e.g. at Basel in the 15th century), this route could have been pursued further.